Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have three requests...

1 - Please stop referrring to "ghost ball" methods to always mean you are trying to vizualize some phantom ball....There methods that are lumped in to the "ghost ball" family that do not require you to imagine a ball...

2 - Please stop posting videos of shooting blind shots....There is not way to put enough controls in place that will prove that there are no reference points...and it does not do justice for the aiming method....In fact it makes the system appear as a parlor trick....It reminds me of the trick shot where the guy throws a hankerchief over the balls on the spot and asks someone in the audience to shoot the shoot into either corner pocket...and guess what it always goes.

Furthermore it makeing the supporters of CTE to come accross as......"nahnah-nahnah-naaaahna....my system is better than your system" people.

3 - Somebody post a video of using CTE to make shots into the side pockets from random angles (including shallow slow roll type angles)...please desctibe what your are doing.......and....placing the OB on the spot and the CB at the opposite spot....shoot a shot into a specific end rail diamond....then using the same exact set up...shoot a shot 1-1/4 diamonds to the right or left..(your choice)...please describe what you are doing.




3 -
 
BRKNRUN said:
I have three requests...

1 - Please stop referrring to "ghost ball" methods to always mean you are trying to vizualize some phantom ball....There methods that are lumped in to the "ghost ball" family that do not require you to imagine a ball...

2 - Please stop posting videos of shooting blind shots....There is not way to put enough controls in place that will prove that there are no reference points...and it does not do justice for the aiming method....In fact it makes the system appear as a parlor trick....It reminds me of the trick shot where the guy throws a hankerchief over the balls on the spot and asks someone in the audience to shoot the shoot into either corner pocket...and guess what it always goes.

Furthermore it makeing the supporters of CTE to come accross as......"nahnah-nahnah-naaaahna....my system is better than your system" people.

3 - Somebody post a video of using CTE to make shots into the side pockets from random angles (including shallow slow roll type angles)...please desctibe what your are doing.......and....placing the OB on the spot and the CB at the opposite spot....shoot a shot into a specific end rail diamond....then using the same exact set up...shoot a shot 1-1/4 diamonds to the right or left..(your choice)...please describe what you are doing.




3 -
Click to expand...

I'm hemmed-up with the gf wil Sunday PM. Will do #3 for you. Stan has a way to hit points; however, I don't know the diamond-target thing well enough to make a video.
 
My trainer is the result of not being able to see the ghostball. The spot on the table that the cueball sits at contact is what I can see....
BRKNRUN said:
I have three requests...

1 - Please stop referrring to "ghost ball" methods to always mean you are trying to vizualize some phantom ball....There methods that are lumped in to the "ghost ball" family that do not require you to imagine a ball...

2 - Please stop posting videos of shooting blind shots....There is not way to put enough controls in place that will prove that there are no reference points...and it does not do justice for the aiming method....In fact it makes the system appear as a parlor trick....It reminds me of the trick shot where the guy throws a hankerchief over the balls on the spot and asks someone in the audience to shoot the shoot into either corner pocket...and guess what it always goes.

Furthermore it makeing the supporters of CTE to come accross as......"nahnah-nahnah-naaaahna....my system is better than your system" people.

3 - Somebody post a video of using CTE to make shots into the side pockets from random angles (including shallow slow roll type angles)...please desctibe what your are doing.......and....placing the OB on the spot and the CB at the opposite spot....shoot a shot into a specific end rail diamond....then using the same exact set up...shoot a shot 1-1/4 diamonds to the right or left..(your choice)...please describe what you are doing.




3 -
Click to expand...
 
randyg said:
Actually there are only two not three.......SPF=randyg
Click to expand...

I think this is true in a frictionless world. Thick/thin will cover 90% of shots. When you have thin back-cuts and want to use center ball, you need an alignment adjustment. Hal used to teach me to sweep my tip across the CB to the opposite side for real thin shots. However, you're locked into outside with that. There could be a 4th: paper thin (which I'd never shoot). That would be edge to reverse edge with enough overlap to make a hit.

I'm not up to speed with Same Aim so I don't know how you teach the pivot. I vaguely recall you air pivot; so, it's possible you arc more on thin back-cuts (which imparts more cut).

Dave
 
pool101 said:
My trainer is the result of not being able to see the ghostball. The spot on the table that the cueball sits at contact is what I can see....
Click to expand...


Right...that is exactly where I start...It is referred as "center to center".....I only use the spot for a brief second because I convert that spot to an aim track line that will end up pointing (usually) at one of the 3-line aims.....

That means I don't need to hold on to a spot on the cloth....I have a aim line that my back foot gets placed on...(this is all done while standing)...Then it is as simple as a step forward along a parallel line to the aim line and my cue drops right on the aim line (square) and in line to the target.

In all this above method...I never once actually vizualize a ghost ball....and the spot on the cloth (center ghost ball) is only viewed just long enough to determing my aim line.
 
Well, 12-15 years later, another 1,000 posts, multiple videos and widespread cross-communication, but still no credible explanation of just how these Hal Houle-derived "systems" are supposed to defy logic and geometry and actually work the way they're advertised (and still only 3 angles!). Who'da thunkit?

The one thing we can confidently conclude is that there's always an ample supply of new Houleigan acolytes willing to suspend whatever common sense they might be endowed with (perhaps a small sacrifice), endure the slings and arrows of head-scratching logicians, and fork out $40 on the off chance that a Houley Grail of effortless aiming actually exists (Stan Shuffet thanks you).

Once again it's been a slice, but I think I recognize this cul de sac. Somebody please let me know if Spidey posts a real test or aliens land.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, 12-15 years later, another 1,000 posts, multiple videos and widespread cross-communication, but still no credible explanation of just how these Hal Houle-derived "systems" are supposed to defy logic and geometry and actually work the way they're advertised (and still only 3 angles!). Who'da thunkit?

The one thing we can confidently conclude is that there's always an ample supply of new Houleigan acolytes willing to suspend whatever common sense they might be endowed with (perhaps a small sacrifice), endure the slings and arrows of head-scratching logicians, and fork out $40 on the off chance that a Houley Grail of effortless aiming actually exists (Stan Shuffet thanks you).

Once again it's been a slice, but I think I recognize this cul de sac. Somebody please let me know if Spidey posts a real test or aliens land.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

After 15 years you must be clueless if you think CTE is about 3 angles.:confused::confused:

3 alignments, yes. Angles, no. Angles are probably 0-75, maybe 80.
 
BRKNRUN said:
Right...that is exactly where I start...It is referred as "center to center".....I only use the spot for a brief second because I convert that spot to an aim track line that will end up pointing (usually) at one of the 3-line aims.....

That means I don't need to hold on to a spot on the cloth....I have a aim line that my back foot gets placed on...(this is all done while standing)...Then it is as simple as a step forward along a parallel line to the aim line and my cue drops right on the aim line (square) and in line to the target.

In all this above method...I never once actually vizualize a ghost ball....and the spot on the cloth (center ghost ball) is only viewed just long enough to determing my aim line.
Click to expand...

I could not have said it better myself!! I go from the spot on the table to either fractional ball or my stick aimed through the center of cueball to the aim line ( which can be outside the object ball) and as you said my rt foot is on that line at about a 45 to it and it passes over the top of my foot.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, 12-15 years later, another 1,000 posts, multiple videos and widespread cross-communication, but still no credible explanation of just how these Hal Houle-derived "systems" are supposed to defy logic and geometry and actually work the way they're advertised (and still only 3 angles!). Who'da thunkit?

The one thing we can confidently conclude is that there's always an ample supply of new Houleigan acolytes willing to suspend whatever common sense they might be endowed with (perhaps a small sacrifice), endure the slings and arrows of head-scratching logicians, and fork out $40 on the off chance that a Houley Grail of effortless aiming actually exists (Stan Shuffet thanks you).

Once again it's been a slice, but I think I recognize this cul de sac. Somebody please let me know if Spidey posts a real test or aliens land.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You do realize the REAL TEST you posted doesn't make sense, don't you?
 
lfigueroa said:
This thread has, no doubt, finally and irrevocably: Jumped the Shark.

I cannot believe you guys are wasting your time with these goofy setups which prove absolutely nothing.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

And what excactly would prove it to you LOU?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, 12-15 years later, another 1,000 posts, multiple videos and widespread cross-communication, but still no credible explanation of just how these Hal Houle-derived "systems" are supposed to defy logic and geometry and actually work the way they're advertised (and still only 3 angles!). Who'da thunkit?

The one thing we can confidently conclude is that there's always an ample supply of new Houleigan acolytes willing to suspend whatever common sense they might be endowed with (perhaps a small sacrifice), endure the slings and arrows of head-scratching logicians, and fork out $40 on the off chance that a Houley Grail of effortless aiming actually exists (Stan Shuffet thanks you).

Once again it's been a slice, but I think I recognize this cul de sac. Somebody please let me know if Spidey posts a real test or aliens land.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Come on, Do a real test with Spidey. Lets end this debate. Go for it PJ. Don't let your supporters down.
 
pool101 said:
As you can see in this picture you can still see where the pocket is!!!
View attachment 158321

This is closer to what I had in mind, but I can still reference the table without actually seeing the pocket, because I can see the rails and other pockets, plus I know my table...
And Neil I am not the best in my pool hall!!! wish I were...:smile: That would be Jason Klatt..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APzy81RzuwU
Click to expand...


While shooting blind would always be harder, this test makes little sense to me. You put the OB in the same spot every time. As long as you are oriented to where the OB is in relation to the pocket, you won't need to see it. To make that more effective, you needed to move both OB and CB multiple times.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, 12-15 years later, another 1,000 posts, multiple videos and widespread cross-communication, but still no credible explanation of just how these Hal Houle-derived "systems" are supposed to defy logic and geometry and actually work the way they're advertised (and still only 3 angles!). Who'da thunkit?

The one thing we can confidently conclude is that there's always an ample supply of new Houleigan acolytes willing to suspend whatever common sense they might be endowed with (perhaps a small sacrifice), endure the slings and arrows of head-scratching logicians, and fork out $40 on the off chance that a Houley Grail of effortless aiming actually exists (Stan Shuffet thanks you).

Once again it's been a slice, but I think I recognize this cul de sac. Somebody please let me know if Spidey posts a real test or aliens land.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...



If your time is worth $1 an hour, you have already invested far more than $40 studying CTE and posting on the subject.
 
alignment vs. (cut) angles

SpiderWebComm said:
After 15 years you must be clueless if you think CTE is about 3 angles.:confused::confused:

3 alignments, yes. Angles, no. Angles are probably 0-75, maybe 80.
Click to expand...

I think, now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. How do you convert your three initial alignments into a large (maybe even infinite) number of actual cut angles?

I am quite a newby to the game and also to this forum (actually my first post!), so don't flame me, if this question has already been answered years ago. I don't really think it has, otherwise there might be less confusion about CTE.

Karl
 
BRKNRUN said:
Right...that is exactly where I start...It is referred as "center to center".....I only use the spot for a brief second because I convert that spot to an aim track line that will end up pointing (usually) at one of the 3-line aims.....

That means I don't need to hold on to a spot on the cloth....I have a aim line that my back foot gets placed on...(this is all done while standing)...Then it is as simple as a step forward along a parallel line to the aim line and my cue drops right on the aim line (square) and in line to the target.

In all this above method...I never once actually vizualize a ghost ball....and the spot on the cloth (center ghost ball) is only viewed just long enough to determing my aim line.
Click to expand...

So, you never have used a bridge to go over a ball to hit the CB?

Once you use a bridge, foot placement is meaningless in aiming.

Oh, I forget.....I play on 9ft table where at times one has to reach for a shot.


3 aim lines .....hehehehhhe geez I needed a laugh
 
duckie said:
So, you never have used a bridge to go over a ball to hit the CB?

Once you use a bridge, foot placement is meaningless in aiming.

Oh, I forget.....I play on 9ft table where at times one has to reach for a shot.


3 aim lines .....hehehehhhe geez I needed a laugh
Click to expand...


Well....Lets see....If I am using a bridge to go over a ball...that would mean the ball is on the aim line right?.....Kind of becomes a fairly good marker.

I completley understand that your back foot does not always "stay" on the aim line....for various "non standard" shots it has to move...but it can start there during the set up process.

BTW...glad I could give you a good laugh....you clearly have no clue what I actually think of the 3-line method and how I apply the 3-line method (within my whole aiming method)....you also clearly have no clue how the 3-line method works in the first place....

Why is it that anytime someone post a wie diagram or other picture showing aim lines......No matter what the system....the end aim line seems to always fall on one of the 3-line aim points.....after 1000 times I think it stops being a coincidence...:smile:
 
gammaturn said:
I think, now we are getting somewhere with this discussion. How do you convert your three initial alignments into a large (maybe even infinite) number of actual cut angles?

I am quite a newby to the game and also to this forum (actually my first post!), so don't flame me, if this question has already been answered years ago. I don't really think it has, otherwise there might be less confusion about CTE.

Karl
Click to expand...

Karl - If your question was answered clearly and honestly, these discussions would be long over.

I think the answer is you use your aiming prowess to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top